tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post8396855395694047321..comments2024-03-28T22:29:52.666+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Confirmation: A rite in search of a theology?!Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-68927837330006905512016-08-20T14:16:36.572+12:002016-08-20T14:16:36.572+12:00"I ignored the Episcopal Church version (sadl..."I ignored the Episcopal Church version (sadly it's easier to ignore TEC)"<br /><br />Heh, fair enough. I avoid the one in the NZ Prayer Book for similar reasons. Fidgeting has gone on, and some of it political. TEC's 1979 wording is, as far as I can tell, pretty faithful to the original, but always a good idea to check these things out, especially where TEC is concerned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-89546933035741805842016-08-19T22:46:20.396+12:002016-08-19T22:46:20.396+12:00Hi Shawn; I ignored the Episcopal Church version (...Hi Shawn; I ignored the Episcopal Church version (sadly it's easier to ignore TEC) and I went to the English 1662. NZ Anglicans will know better than I do, but I think the English B of CP is a formulary of the Anglican church here in NZ. So, when you say that the short catechism has no authority as a confessional statement, you might be underestimating it in an NZ Anglican context. Regardless of this, I agree with your comments.<br /><br />Nick<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-44893117509643467132016-08-19T21:26:14.689+12:002016-08-19T21:26:14.689+12:00Hi NIck. No, I mean this one;
http://anglicansonl...Hi NIck. No, I mean this one;<br /><br />http://anglicansonline.org/basics/catechism.html<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-23066246868736790612016-08-19T19:32:49.585+12:002016-08-19T19:32:49.585+12:00Hi Shawn,
I'm a Roman, so I'm a guest her...Hi Shawn,<br /><br />I'm a Roman, so I'm a guest here and grateful to Peter that he lets me contribute. You talk about the catechism; do you mean pages 926-938 of "A New Zealand Prayer Book" ? No trick question.<br /><br />NickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-72605158602759759242016-08-19T19:26:33.017+12:002016-08-19T19:26:33.017+12:00Hi Andrei
A true enough point, examples exist of ...Hi Andrei<br /><br />A true enough point, examples exist of people being baptised and then later receiving the Holy Spirit through prayer. Also in acts the Holy Spirit cme upon the gentiles as Peter spoke to them (more like as at Pentecost), then they were baptized. At other times people believe are baptised and straight away receive the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />It seems all three examples still exist today!<br /><br />Blessings<br />Jean<br /><br />Jeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-49476334078259528072016-08-19T17:27:05.537+12:002016-08-19T17:27:05.537+12:00While I understand that it has no authority as a c...While I understand that it has no authority as a confessional statement, the catechism is a useful touchstone for the shape of Anglicanism. Despite the distinction between Gospel sacraments and sacramental rites, we clearly have seven sacraments in practice, something we hold in common with the universal church.<br /><br />Even in churches which come from the Baptist tradition, and in theory hold to only two sacraments, in practice all seven are actually performed, in various forms. They may not call them sacraments, but the sacramental actions observably remain. I suspect this has to do with the way that the sevenfold structure actually reflects human life experience. Birth, puberty/initiation, getting right with God and your community, adult vocations in marriage and holy orders, and death. That the actual practice of this sevenfold structure remains pervasive suggests to me that a bit more thought is required, not just in terms of theological rationalism. Especially with regards to Confirmation and young adults, in our secular and de-sacralized modernity, there is little to nothing in the way of marking the transition to adulthood that has any reference to the Transcendent. There is both opportunity and responsibility for the church here that needs to be considered.<br /><br />In terms of the practice of Confirmation in the Anglican Church, the catechism is clear that it should be performed by the Bishop.<br /><br />All of this to me suggests the need for far more caution, thought and reflection. And I agree with some of the commentators above that we are far too prone in modern Anglicanism to tinkering and fidgeting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-45318352795264645662016-08-19T00:27:31.442+12:002016-08-19T00:27:31.442+12:00A very good point, Andrei. Also, though, the Holy ...A very good point, Andrei. Also, though, the Holy Spirit may not only be systematised according to human legislation, but 'blows where It listeth', sometimes contrarily to our human expectations. I guess this keeps God in God's proper place - as divine Ruler.<br />"My ways are not your ways, nor my thoughts your thoughts" says the Lord of Hosts. It just goes to show that God uses the Church but is not limited by Her. Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-29969174501715416932016-08-18T21:36:55.432+12:002016-08-18T21:36:55.432+12:00The answers to these questions are all in Holy Sc...The answers to these questions are all in Holy Scripture<br /><br />In Acts 8 for example <br /><br /><i>"14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:<br /><br />15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:<br /><br />16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)<br /><br />17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.</i>Andreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-20156712524454245802016-08-18T21:07:51.908+12:002016-08-18T21:07:51.908+12:00That is not WW3, Jean.
If lay people can baptise i...That is not WW3, Jean.<br />If lay people can baptise in emergencies, I think it fair to asked the learned doctors of the church why not the eucharist also?<br />(But I do mean genuine emergencies!)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-27782233746564112942016-08-18T17:09:18.403+12:002016-08-18T17:09:18.403+12:00I always wondered why I was consistently told off ...I always wondered why I was consistently told off for fidgeting! Now I know : )<br /><br />I agree with Peter re the infilling of the Holy Spirit at Confirmation or Ordination as on other occassions differs from receiving the Holy Spirit (e.g. stir up the gift that is a l r e a d y within you).<br /><br />Peter's ouline of the role for confirmation in the post sits well for me. If it was the same thing by a different name such as re-affirmation of Baptismal vows as an adult it would sit just as well. One can get lost in the details that I think detract from the main purpose or point.<br /><br />I do start to fidget, however, when it comes to who can do what re the laying on of hands or the 'administration' of communion. Before I start blog WWIII, if a minister is available to bless the wine and bread for communion, or a Bishop available to confirm I see no need for there to be any major alterations to these actions. However, where the Bible says do this in remembrance of me I doubt he added a precursor "only I would prefer you didn't if a Priest isn't available".<br /><br />Also regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit my understanding is this is quite separate from both Baptism of water or the laying on of hands. Jesus himself said (okay I am a literalist at times) "I will Baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire". So my understanding is such experiences as at Pentecost come direct from Christ by the Spirit without human's as the instruments.<br /><br />Jeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-47645198049255503412016-08-18T12:57:55.465+12:002016-08-18T12:57:55.465+12:00re Bowman's comments; it's perhaps as well...re Bowman's comments; it's perhaps as well that there were 'fidgets', too, in the Church's fist beginnings; they insisted on things like outlawing the need for (at least male) circumcision; women being subject to male domination and other things the Church now takes for granted - as being a 'wrong' tradition. I wonder if the Scribes and Pharisees though Jesus to be a 'fidget'. Must have been something like that - they had Him crucified for his tendency to agitate. Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-20284485066401848272016-08-18T10:05:27.494+12:002016-08-18T10:05:27.494+12:00Thanks Bowman
I shall attempt to be less fidgety!
...Thanks Bowman<br />I shall attempt to be less fidgety!<br />And more relaxed about being a traditional Anglican ...Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-32819146676224880052016-08-18T10:00:39.151+12:002016-08-18T10:00:39.151+12:00Alas, Peter, I do follow the logic of the fidgets;...Alas, Peter, I do follow the logic of the fidgets; it just lacks understanding and applicability. <br /><br />The Church's *practice* of confirmation has somewhat depended on the scriptural example of the apostles, and a traditional understanding of apostolicity. It has never depended upon any single *theory* that can either make sense or not. (In this, it is similar to, say, the Atonement. Will we next drop the Cross because we have no single theory of how it worked that rationalistic fidgets can accept?) Either one practices the tradition given by the Holy Spirit to the Church, or one does not. <br /><br />Fidgets, at bottom, do not like tradition because it demands a certain humility and limits their power, and they like synods because they give them power that the mass of the faithful would refuse them. The essential problem that fidgets have with confirmation is that it refuses to be reduced to a tidy theory that they can adjudge and find acceptable *apart from the tradition* that some of us keep mentioning here and that others of us keep ignoring here. That, on this question, there are Roman fidgets as well as Anglican fidgets is understandable-- the former taught the latter how to rationalistically misunderstand sacraments-- but this proves nothing to those in both communions who believe the third article of the creeds. <br /><br />In its heyday, fidgetry was an accommodation strategy for churches in cultures with Christian majorities. It allowed churches to carry on more or less of the tradition while reassuring the public that the fidgets in charge would never let religion get in the way of modernity. But in today's postmodern, deconstantinianised, global village, the habitual rationalism of the fidgets is simply bad religion with some much livelier competitors. Signs of the times: myriad movements are retrieving past sacred traditions, and the churches led by the fidgets and their synods are withering. <br /><br />So again: fidgets are the echo of yesterday's theological rationalism, and the future of our churches depends on how many fully understand that (1) Human nature is universal; (2) Presentism is ignorance; (3) Anglicanism is a whole.<br /><br />Bowman WaltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74106622875704704372016-08-17T10:40:57.413+12:002016-08-17T10:40:57.413+12:00Precisely, Peter! Our Church teaches that salvatio...Precisely, Peter! Our Church teaches that salvation has already been accomplished - by Jesus Christ - without any other human agency, personal or communal. The Churches' role is to enable that salvation to be taken up - by individuals and communities - by their teaching, pastoring, and sacramental administration.<br /><br />Our human response, ideally, is to accept, receive, and take our personal part in its offering the Good News of God's grace in and to the world. The Laying on of hands by the bishop is part of God's plan for our empowerment; to experience, live out, and to minister God's gifts of grace in their particular order. Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-85090235370018596472016-08-17T07:04:01.571+12:002016-08-17T07:04:01.571+12:00Dear Andrew and Ron
I understand the invocation of...Dear Andrew and Ron<br />I understand the invocation of the Holy Spirit at Confirmation and at Ordination to not be about salvation (there is not a two step process to being saved) but to be about an infilling and empowering of the Holy Spirit for service in the world.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-70707077988712796772016-08-17T07:02:20.737+12:002016-08-17T07:02:20.737+12:00Dear Ron
I am deleting the last part of the commen...Dear Ron<br />I am deleting the last part of the comment you posted here, below, because it shifts from comment on the issue to speculative comment on the commenter. NO!<br /><br />"Andrew Reid; are you seriously suggesting that the words of our liturgies that suggest the special visitation of the Holy Spirit on occasions of the Laying on of Hands by the Bishop are actually in error? For instance, are priests not in receipt of the Holy Spirit - empowering them for their ministry at their priestly Ordination? [] "Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-91868089152571792602016-08-17T07:00:11.296+12:002016-08-17T07:00:11.296+12:00Hi Bowman
I do not quite think you are following t...Hi Bowman<br />I do not quite think you are following the logic of Kiwi (and other) Anglicans!<br />If Confirmation is a completion of Christian initiation then your logic stands (it is a universal sacramental action, not to be changed by one province and not all others simultaneously, etc).<br />But the argument of certain Down Under species of Anglicans is that we do not believe it completes initiation, thus loosed from the moorings of baptism and uncoupled from the rail track leading to Holy Communion it is a very fair question to ask whether Confirmation is any longer a rite-with-purpose and to further ask what that purpose(s) is.<br />That more than (at least some) Anglicans are theologically uneasy about Confirmation is, to me, illustrated by the shifting seas upon which Confirmation sails in Roman seas (as in shifting around between priority before First Communion and secondarity to First Communion, I realise that officially it is still understood as "completing" baptism).<br />Hence in the ACANZP context my post (alongside of which, across the Ditch, Andrew Reid makes pertinent criticisms) and hence, off this blog, some correspondence with colleagues who do not accept my attempt to "rescue" Confirmation because they would go further and more in the Andre Reid direction, albeit from a different theological starting point!<br />Thus, back to my beginning point here, by all means say we are wrong to draw the theological conclusion that Confirmation does not complete initiation, but only on that basis does your logic work (IMHO).Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-62186474209273480162016-08-16T09:59:48.003+12:002016-08-16T09:59:48.003+12:00As usual, Peter, I look on this with three conside...As usual, Peter, I look on this with three considerations in mind.<br /><br />(1) Human Nature is Universal. What concerns universal human nature cannot be changed by anything less than the whole universal Church. Because Christian initiation concerns the human person as such, and not the English person, the American person, or the Kiwi person, there is no possibility of there being an English, an American, or a Kiwi sacrament of initiation. A fortiori there cannot be a sacrament (eg confirmation) that is valid in one province but not in another.<br /><br />(2) Presentism is Ignorance. If persons not authorities on the ancient and present practice propose to change it because it does not make sense to people on casual acquaintance, then the wise thing to do is not to change the practice but to educate the ignorant as far as is possible. <br /><br />(3) Anglicanism is a Whole. Churches are interesting to Anglicans insofar as they maintain the *whole* Anglican tradition, especially with respect to those matters in which we have differed from Rome and the more radical Reformed. For example, the Diocese of Christchurch is more interesting and credible to Anglicans than the Diocese of Sydney because the former has retained an Anglican understanding of church order and the latter with its lay celebration of communion has lost that understanding. Not many are seriously demanding that Sydney be expelled from the Communion, but here up yonder there are episcopal Lutherans in Sweden with more credibility because their practice is closer to our practice. <br /><br />With these in mind, I cannot see why any reasonable person down under would insist on a certain anomie on That Topic but then demand a rigorously consistent presentist theology of confirmation. If one does not like confirmation for some fidgety reason, then why not just think about something less disturbing?<br /><br />Bowman WaltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-51178230820923228242016-08-15T22:58:53.027+12:002016-08-15T22:58:53.027+12:00Hi Peter,
A couple of preliminaries:
1) A question...Hi Peter,<br />A couple of preliminaries:<br />1) A question about language. Do Anglicans really recognise 5 "sacramental actions"? They are not referred to as such in the 39 Articles, but rather as rites consistent with Scripture.<br />2) Renewal of baptism. Without wanting to get off confirmation and onto baptism I think baptism renewal is a very dangerous trend that I see increasing, especially among people baptised as infants or who want to be baptised somewhere significant e.g. the Jordan River. We have one Lord, one faith and one baptism, not multiple.<br /><br />I genuinely have an open mind about teh details of confirmation, but within the following principles:<br />- For those baptised as infants, there is a place for a service where they can express their faith individually and publicly.<br />- If you are baptised as an adult, confirmation is worse than useless. It suggests that your baptism was insufficient in some way.<br />- Confirmation should not be a prerequisite for any church office, including ordained clergy. If you are baptised and receive the Lord's Supper you are a full member of the church. I know of clergy who have been confirmed in the lead up to their ordination because they hadn't been confirmed earlier.<br />- There is no reason that only a bishop should be able to confirm people. A priest can surely judge if a candidate is ready for confirmation and is likely to know them much better than the bishop! Maybe it's helpful to have the bishop there as a sign of unity but if only the bishop can confirm, we infer that only they have the special spiritual power to do it, or that we threaten church authority.<br />- As you say, I don't see any necessary link between confirmation and discipleship (cathechesis). Not do I see a link with receiving the Lord's Supper, which most dioceses allow children to receive.<br />- It is also unhelpful to link Confirmation with receiving the Holy Spirit or Pentecost. That is a 2-step salvation unsupported by the Scriptures (with a couple of exceptions in the very early days of the church) and similar to the error of SOME charismatic churches. The Holy Spirit comes upon us when we believe in the Lord Jesus - not when we are confirmed or when the Bishop puts his hands on us.<br />- Confirmation "sponsors" as allowed for in some liturgies seem a bit pointless to me. Isn't the whole point for the candidate to express their faith publicly?<br />- It is better to use the rite of reception for those joining the Anglican church from another denomination. Some bishops seem to like using confirmation for this purpose despite there being a purpose-built rite of reception for that purpose. Confirmation suggests their Christian faith has been deficient to this point.<br /><br />Anyway, may God guide you in NZ and all of us elsewhere as we seek to honour Him in this area.Andrew Reidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74739261162817748802016-08-15T09:05:55.514+12:002016-08-15T09:05:55.514+12:00" A rite in search of a theology?!"
I b...<i>" A rite in search of a theology?!"</i><br /><br />I believe the theological explanation lies in the connecting of the recipient of this Sacrament to Pentecost and the reception of the Holy Spirit received then handed down from the Apostles from generation to generation <br /><br />Thus the Apostolic succession is invoked with the connection of the Bishop in this sacrament either through the laying on of hands or in the anointing with Chrism provided by the Bishop<br /><br />The Chrism used in Chrismation is provided by the Bishop but contains Chrism from his predecessor who in turn prepared his Chrism using some of his of his predecessors and so forth down the ages<br /><br />I don't know if this is helpful and I'm no expert on thisAndreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-88046216828425306312016-08-15T06:27:14.404+12:002016-08-15T06:27:14.404+12:00Hi Nick
You are perfectly summing up first the ins...Hi Nick<br />You are perfectly summing up first the insight of some Anglican churches around the world, "in some respects there is nothing to confirm ..." while summing up my key point, that, nevertheless, "confirmation is crucial ..."<br />Thank you (and to you, Jean and others being supportive here).Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-3613857445530444072016-08-14T22:25:47.893+12:002016-08-14T22:25:47.893+12:00Hi Peter; in some respects there is nothing to con...Hi Peter; in some respects there is nothing to confirm if the baptism is recorded and confirmation is not a sacrament. However, Jean is correct (and I expand on what she says) that confirmation is crucial for those who want to make their own commitment. It's a John 3 moment.<br /><br />NickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-73518021121714577462016-08-14T19:43:38.319+12:002016-08-14T19:43:38.319+12:00Hi Peter,
I quite agree with you that it w...Hi Peter,<br /> I quite agree with you that it would indeed be a sad day if the Church were to move away from the current Baptism/Confirmation practice.I am still to see the point that +Jim is making with his comment that " there is nothing to confirm".It seems that we could do worse, than, follow the example of Joseph and Mary-Luke 2:27 & 2:42.<br /> Children need every encouragement to form healthy and strong personal identities.Those who are in leadership roles in the Church, need to very vigilant about putting any stumbling blocks in the paths of our developing youth.<br />Regards,Glen.Glen Youngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-49954028554572344242016-08-14T15:41:19.622+12:002016-08-14T15:41:19.622+12:00Hi Glen
Yes I understand what you are saying and t...Hi Glen<br />Yes I understand what you are saying and the sentence I deleted in another context (e.g. a direct letter from you to the aforesaid bishop) would be appropriate as a direct and directive remark from you to him. But I need to take care here to avoid "ad hominem" comments because when someone subsequently complains about them, it takes me more time and energy to defuse the situation than I care to spend.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-37211669939297557942016-08-14T15:39:17.093+12:002016-08-14T15:39:17.093+12:00Hi Nick and other readers here
I should clarify, f...Hi Nick and other readers here<br />I should clarify, further to my response above to Nick's first comment in this thread, I ONLY mean that I reside within a different Catholic Diocese in respect to "order" of special events in the life of a growing Catholic young person. As far as I can tell the content of preparation and support through preparation is exemplary and, I shall assume, consistent across all dioceses.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com